<<Disclaimer: Verify this information before applying it to your situation.>>

When I posted this interesting little diddy.  That's all it was supposed
to be, an interesting little diddy.  It's not presented as a 100% proof
of the true & only reason celiac disease exists.  And, this article only
applies to children who develop celiac disease before the age of 2.  It
didn't say ALL celiacs were born in the spring & summer.  It's only food
for thought & discussion.  I've lost count of the number of e-mails that
have been sent to contradict the findings of this little study.  My
response to that is, unless you've surveyed over 2,000 celiacs under the
age of 2 as was done by this research team, your anecdotal evidence isn't
proof of anything, but it is interesting and I thank you for responding.
The most significant thing for me about this study is that it shows that
there may be environmental factors that could possibly be manipulated to
prevent the onset of a few cases of celiac disease.  I received a few
thoughtful responses which I will quote below my signature.
        Several things came to my mind when I read that article.  Spring &
summer are key times of the year that people suffer most from seasonal
allergies.  So perhaps the assault of seasonal pollens on the immune
system of a newborn is a trigger factor.  Who knows?  The other thing
that this article makes me think of is the passive immunity that newborns
receive from their mothers at birth.  For babies born in the spring &
summer, this immunity begins to run out just about the time that cold &
flu season begins.  This could possibly weaken the immune system of a
predisposed child making him a little more vulnerable to an immune
disorder.  It's also during this time that children usually get their
first respiratory infection that requires antibiotic therapy.  That
leaves the child with compromised gut flora.  This brings to mind the
articles Roy Jamron has posted about celiac disease & imbalanced
intestinal flora.  So perhaps these factors and probably others are
enough to push a few genetically predisposed children over the edge ? ? ?
?

Valerie in Tacoma
-----------------
Thank you for your interesting post.  It just occurred to me why the
March to June babies might have a greater likelihood of developing Celiac
disease.   When you think about it, part of their first trimester would
occur in September and October when the fall weather in many places in
North America takes effect.  I imagine that when it's near the end of
"bikini season" (sorry to be gender-specific, but it is the female who
carries the little 'one'), and when the colder weather sets-in, many
women begin to eat more carbohydrates,  including gluten for the moms who
aren't celiac, as comfort food and as an instinctive or "seasonal
affective" response to the coming
winter. The first trimester is critical in the development of the fetus,
and exposure to gluten at that time from the mother's ingestion, may in
fact be the predisposing factor that links up to the March to June babies
having a greater susceptibility to Celiac disease.  This is just a theory
that occurred to me.  Christiane
--------------
Interesting! I have a little theory of my own. I think celiac disease is
caused (in part, at least) from lack of nutrients due to an imbalanced
diet--particularly not enough of or a variety of fresh fruits and
vegetables. I could see how if you were carrying your child mainly in the
winter, when fresh fruits and vegetables would not be as readily
available, you could be predisposing your child to CD, since he or she
would not be getting those nutrients in utero. Maybe I'm nutty. ;-) Food
for thought, anyway... Thanks for sharing. Danielle in Charlotte

[Danielle's theory is very interesting to me.  That could explain why
only half of identical twin celiacs have a twin with celiac.  If celiac
was a purely genetic disease, then every celiac identical twin's twin
would also be celiac.  In utero, one twin is usually less well nourished
because of position in the uterus & access to the mother's nourishment.
One twin is always of lower birth weight & this tendency to smaller
stature & poorer health is usually present for many years.  Perhaps it's
the less well nourished twin that is more vulnerable to this disease? ? ?
?]

________________________________________________________________
Get your name as your email address.
Includes spam protection, 1GB storage, no ads and more
Only $1.99/ month - visit http://www.mysite.com/name today!

* All posts for product information must include the applicable country *